Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development Project (USMID)

Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development Project (USMID)

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEM ASSESSMENT (ESSA)

Background Annexes

Volume 2

DRAFT

November 2012

i

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 1

Summary Program Description 1

Summary of ESSA Annexes 1

ANNEX 1 BASELINE CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS 4

1.1 Introduction 4

1.2 Existing Environmental Conditions in USMID Municipalities 4

1.3 Existing Social Conditions in USMID Municipalities 6

1.4 Description of USMID Infrastructure Works 7

1.5 Potential Program Benefits 8

1.6 Potential Negative Impacts 10

1.6.1 Direct Negative Impacts 10

1.6.2 Cumulative and Induced Impacts 10

1.6.3 Summary of Potential Impacts 11

1.6.4 Impacts on Natural Habitats 16

1.6.5 Resettlement and Land Acquisition 17

1.6.6 Scope and Scale of Impacts 17

ANNEX 2 PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 18

2.1 Environmental Management System as Written 18

2.1.1 Policy, Legal and Regulatory Framework 18

2.1.2 Institutions, roles, responsibilities and coordination 22

2.1.3 The Environmental Management Process 24

2.1.4 The NEMA Environmental Assessment Process 25

2.2 Environmental Management System as Applied in Practice 29

2.2.1 Planning Environment 29

2.2.2 Environmental Assessment System 29

2.2.3 Full Environmental Impact Assessment 30

2.2.4 Review and decision making 31

2.2.5 Implementation 32

2.2.6 Supervision and Oversight 32

2.3 Resource Constraints to Environmental Management 33

2.4 Conclusions 34

ANNEX 3 PROGRAM SOCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 35

3.1 Social Management System as Written 35

3.1.1 Framework for Property and Land Rights 35

3.1.2 Access to Information 38

3.1.3 Institutions, Roles, Responsibilities 38

3.2 Social Management Systems as Applied in Practice 40

3.2.1 Social Impact Assessment Process 40

3.2.2 Participation 41

3.2.3 Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Compensation 43

3.2.4 Protection of vulnerable groups 44

3.2.5 Accountability and Transparency 44

3.2.6 Social Conflict 46

3.3 Resource Constraints to Social Management 46

3.4 Conclusions 47

ANNEX 4 GAP ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT 48

ANNEX 5 FIELD STUDY ON USMID MUNICIPALITIES 57

ANNEX 6 CONSULTATION RECORD 79

Tables

Table 1: Summary of environmental impacts arising from urbanization. 5

Table 2: Potential Benefits of USMID Investments 9

Table 3: Potential Negative Impacts arising from construction and operation phases 12

Table 4: Environmental and Social Risk Assessment of USMID Program 49

Figures

Figure 1: NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Process 27

Figure 2: Location of municipalities under this project 57

ACRONYMS

CAO Chief Administrative Officer

CBG Capacity Building Grant

CDO Community Development Officer

DEO District Environment Officer

DoOHS Department of Operational Health and Safety, MoLGSD

DSC District Service Commission

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Study

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

ESSF Environmental and Social Screening Form

ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework

ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan

ESSA Environmental And Social Systems Assessment

GOU Government of Uganda

IDA International Development Association

IGFT Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfer

LDG Local Development Grant

LG Local Government

LGDP1 Local Government Development Program 1

LGDP2 Local Government Development Program 2

LGMSDP Local Government Management and Service Delivery Program

LGPAC Local Government Public Accounts Committee

LHUD-SWG Lands, Housing and Urban Development Sector Work Group

LoGSIP Local Government Sector Investment Plan

MCs Municipal Councils

MDP Municipal Development Plans

MEO Municipal Environmental Officer

MGLSD Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development

MoFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development

MoLG Ministry of Local Government

MoLG Ministry of Local Governments

MoLHUD Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development

MoLHUD Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development

MoTWH Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Heritage

MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework

NEMA National Environment Management Authority

NUDF National Urban Development Forum

NWSC National Water and Sewerage Corporation

OAG Office of the Auditor General

OP/BP Operational Policy/ Bank Procedures

PAP Project Affected People/Person

PBG Performance Based Grant

PforR Program-for-Results

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

PSC Program Steering Committee

PST Program Support Team

RAP Resettlement Action Plan

RPF Resettlement Policy Frameworks

SIL Standard Investment Lending

TC Town Clerks

TPC Technical Planning Committee

UNRA Uganda National Roads Authority

USMID Uganda Support for Municipal Infrastructure Development

WB World Bank

i

INTRODUCTION

Summary Program Description

As part of Uganda’s overall decentralization policy, from 2000 – 2007 the World Bank and other Development Partners supported GoU to pilot the Local Government Development program (LGDP) to Local Governments (LGs). The core elements of the program were the local development grant (LDG) and capacity building grant (CBG). Under the program LGs were required to meet certain minimum conditions consistent with the legal and statutory provisions governing their operations. Every year the performances of LGs were assessed and those which performed above average were rewarded with an additional 20% in their grant allocation in the following year, while those which performed poorly were sanctioned and lost 20% of their grant allocation. From 2003 – 2007, with support from the Bank, and other donors through joint financing, the program was scaled nationally to cover all the 1445 LGs in the country (111 Districts LGs, 22 municipal LGs, 165 Town council LGs, and 1147 Sub-Counties LGs).

From 2008 to date, GoU has fully taken over the financing of the LDG and CBG through the Local Government Management and Services Delivery (LGMSD) program from its national budget and over the four years it has provided on average about UGX64 billion annually to all LGs. The government program (LGMSD) in the FY2012/13 will account for 27.26 percent of the decentralized funding to LGs (unconditional grants (UG), equalization grants (EG) and the LDG/CBG)

Like the LGMSD, The USMID Program will finance two major areas of activities namely (i) urban infrastructure investments with associated investments servicing costs (engineering design, preparation of bidding documents and supervision) - and (ii) capacity building activities to strengthen the institutional capacities of both the MoLHUD and the municipal LGs for the achievement of the Program objectives and results. Over the Program period US$140 million will be transferred to the 14 municipal LGs of which US$130 million will be municipal development grant (MDG) for infrastructure investments and US$10 million as municipal capacity building grant (MCBG). The balance of US$20 million will be retained at the center at the MoLHUD to support capacity building activities for urban development and management, and overall support for Program implementation.

The Program Development Objective (PDO) is to enhance the institutional capacity of selected municipal LGs to improve urban service delivery.

The Program envelope is US$160 million of which IDA funding will be US$150 million and GoU contribution from the existing LGMSD will be US$10 million. The Program will be implemented over five years period (2013 – 2018)

The Program scope and coverage is 14 municipalities namely: Arua, Gulu, Lira (Northern Uganda); Soroti, Moroto, Mbale, Tororo, Jinja (Eastern Uganda); Entebbe, Masaka (Central); Mbarara, Kabale, Fort Portal and Hoima (Western Uganda).

Summary of ESSA Annexes

PforR approaches environmental and social issues differently from other Bank operations: where standard investment lending applies the World Bank Safeguard Policies, PforR requires a comprehensive assessment of the systems in place for managing environmental and social effects (including benefits, impacts and risks) – this Environmental and Social Systems Assessment (ESSA) analyzes not just the system itself, but the capacity to plan, monitor and report on environmental mitigation measures; the risks from program activities; and related mitigation measures.

The ESSA examines the Program’s systems for environmental and social management for consistency with the standards outlined in OP/BP 9.00 (Program-for-Results Financing), with an aim to manage Program risks and promote sustainable development. Paragraph 8 of OP 9.00 outlines what the ESSA should consider in terms of environmental and social management principles in its analysis. Those core principles are:

Environmental Management Systems:

·  Promote environmental and social sustainability in the Program design; avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts, and promote informed decision-making relating to the Program’s environmental and social impacts

·  Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts on natural habitats and physical cultural resources resulting from the Program

·  Protect public and worker safety against the potential risks associated with: (i) construction and/or operations of facilities or other operational practices under the Program; (ii) exposure to toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes, and other dangerous materials under the Program; and (iii) reconstruction or rehabilitation of infrastructure located in areas prone to natural hazards

Social Management Systems:

·  Manage land acquisition and loss of access to natural resources in a way that avoids or minimizes displacement, and assist the affected people in improving, or at the minimum restoring, their livelihoods and living standards

·  Give due consideration to the cultural appropriateness of, and equitable access to, Program benefits, giving special attention to the rights and interests of the Indigenous Peoples and to the needs or concerns of vulnerable groups

·  Avoid exacerbating social conflict, especially in fragile states, post-conflict areas, or areas subject to territorial disputes.

The ESSA considers the consistency of the Program systems with these principles in two ways: (i) as systems are defined in laws, regulation, procedures, etc (the “system as written”) and (ii) the capacity of Program institutions to effectively implement the Program environmental and social management systems (the “system as applied in practice”).

The ESSA is divided into two volumes:

1. Volume 1, the ESSA Analysis, which summarizes the systems for environmental and social management and the main gaps, and presents and action plan to strengthen systems and mitigate risks; and
2. Volume 2, Background Annexes, the current volume, present the Program environmental and social context and existing conditions, potential impacts of Program activities, detailed descriptions of existing systems, a gap analysis with the PforR core principles, and a risk assessment.

Note that these annexes do not include recommendations to fill identified gaps and mitigate risks, and instead serve as the technical foundation for the ESSA Analysis. The

The ESSA was prepared by a multidisciplinary team from the World Bank in collaboration with relevant officials and technical staff members of the counterpart implementing agencies. The information in the Background Annexes was obtained from several sources:

Desk review. The review covered current environmental and social legislations and regulations, relevant environmental and social reports (e.g. ESMF and RPF), and district reports on the implementation of the previous and current World Bank projects (LGDP I and II and LGMSDP);

Field visits. Visits to 14 MCs to establish the status and standard of environmental and social safeguard systems at the municipal level and interviews with technical staff in relevant institutions within the Government and Development Partners. The field survey results are contained in ANNEX 5(USMID Field Survey for Municipalities)and ANNEX 6(Consultation Record);

Initial Consultation meetings. Meetings were held with environmental and social management counterparts in municipalities, MoLHUD and other ministries and government institutions, including MoLG, MGLSD, NEMA and National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) to develop understanding of procedures, standards, and approach. A list of personnel involved in this consultation is contained in Annex 6;

Validation workshop. A workshop was held on the 8th May 2012 with technical staff from the Government (both national and municipal levels), Development Partners and Civil Society Organizations. The ESSA draft report was provided in advance of this meeting. Feedback from the workshop has been incorporated into the ESSA and a full list of participants and summary of their feedback is attached in ANNEX 6.

ANNEX 1  BASELINE CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

1.1  Introduction

The decentralization process instigated by the GoU has delivered a number of improvements to its citizens, offering increased levels of self-determination and governance. However the process has inevitably been beset by a number of challenges leading to sub-optimal environmental and social outcomes, particularly in relation to the adequacy of resources to provide sufficient funds to efficiently manage the rapidly increasing number of districts (111 district governments, with 22 municipal governments). The lack of resources suffered by local government in general affects the environmental officers and their duties disproportionately, as their department heads and accounting officers have not always fully grasped the need to mainstream environmental and social issues[1]. Coupled with a lack of funding and resources in key technical line ministries and institutions, this results in challenges for environment and natural resource officers to fulfill their mandates. While structures exist on paper, there has also been a challenge to ensure that these are implemented in order to enable efficient, effective, accountable and transparent service delivery and performance, largely due to constraints cited at all levels in funding and personnel. The situation with regard to municipal government can be even more critical than in district government, as in most instances they are not yet as well established or resourced as the parent districts and in some instances rely on district staff to fulfill certain technical functions.

At the same time the municipal councils face a unique set of problems, due to the relatively dense populations living in areas with inadequate or outdated facilities and services, planned during colonial administration for much lower population levels. This leads to potentially unhygienic living conditions for the urban populations, degradation of the natural resource base (through both overuse and contamination), and a tendency for more vulnerable groups to become further disadvantaged through a lack of access to facilities, services and resources. The lack of a stringent planning environment and recent escalating trends in these urban populations leads to the growth of unplanned settlement on the periphery of the urban areas, further stressing the natural environment and putting pressure on already overloaded municipal services, resulting in constraints in providing citizens with a clean and safe environment.

A summary of existing environmental and social conditions follows. Full details of existing conditions in each municipality can be found in ANNEX 5.

1.2  Existing Environmental Conditions in USMID Municipalities

Poor environmental conditions in many urban areas in Uganda are exacerbated by inadequate planning in some areas such as leading to development in inappropriate areas e.g. open spaces, swamps, and steep slopes. Common environmental degradation identified through surveys with municipal officers included:wetland encroachment, noise and air pollution in 86% of the 14 MCs, inadequate funding of environment department hence poor monitoring and supervision, political interference in environmental management leading to wetland degradation, poor sanitation and pollution of water sources especially in slums.